Timeline for SSL 2.0 Finished Message
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Jan 31, 2017 at 13:05 | vote | accept | user2192774 | ||
Jan 31, 2017 at 6:19 | answer | added | dave_thompson_085 | timeline score: 2 | |
Jan 30, 2017 at 20:13 | comment | added | Xander | @user2192774 Correct. That is the SSL v2 specification. | |
Jan 30, 2017 at 20:12 | comment | added | user2192774 | @Xander Thanks. So the bottom line: the specs are for SSL v2. | |
Jan 30, 2017 at 20:05 | comment | added | Xander |
@user2192774 Because the version was defined to be a single int value, so the version 0x0002 is "2" in SSL2. In v3, it was split into one byte for the major version and one byte for the minor version so the same value 0x0002 is read as "0.2" in SSL3.
|
|
Jan 30, 2017 at 19:51 | comment | added | user2192774 |
But you just wrote: SSL3 reads it as "0.2" then you said: so the version numbers (0.2 and v2) . How come SSL3 reads as 0.2 and also SSL2 reads as 0.2? Can you clarify please?
|
|
Jan 30, 2017 at 19:25 | comment | added | Xander | @user2192774 It isn't a typing mistake. It's an artifact of a change in how version numbers are interpreted between the SSL2 and SSL3 specs. SSL2 reads the version as "2" and SSL3 reads it as "0.2" so the version numbers (0.2 and v2) are to some degree considered interchangable. | |
Jan 30, 2017 at 18:12 | comment | added | SEJPM | What do you mean by "AMC"? | |
Jan 30, 2017 at 17:48 | history | edited | user2192774 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 4 characters in body
|
Jan 30, 2017 at 17:48 | comment | added | user2192774 | @Xander You mean typing mistake in the title? How did you know that? | |
Jan 30, 2017 at 17:25 | comment | added | Xander | @Elias Title aside, that is the correct documentation for SSLv2. | |
Jan 30, 2017 at 16:38 | comment | added | Elias | Wait, the link actually says 0.2. That was never even released. What are you doing? | |
Jan 30, 2017 at 15:58 | history | asked | user2192774 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |